Patna High Court
Dipen Yadav @ Bipin YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the progress of the trial warranted denial of regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Dipen Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case arising from a land dispute where he is alleged to have fired on the informant's uncle, resulting in death, and also to have injured another person. The charges include murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution presented that seven of nine witnesses have been examined, and the petitioner was taken into custody only after a three‑year delay. The petitioner claimed false implication and questioned the informant's presence at the scene. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the number of witnesses examined, and the delay in custody, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with murder, attempt to murder and other serious offences
- Whether the delay in taking the petitioner into custody and the stage of trial affect the bail decision
- Whether the evidence examined to date justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 364, 386, 387
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- attempt to murder
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- land dispute
- trial delay
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80075 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2021 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Dipen Yadav @ Bipin Yadav S/o- Late Parmeshwar Yadav Resident of
Village- Mirzapur, P. S- Manihari, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Manihari P.S. Case no.
206 of 2021 registered under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 364,
201, 307, 386, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and
section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, over a land dispute
between the parties, it is stated that petitioner fired upon the
uncle of the informant hitting him in his head. Further co-
accused Ram Niwash is said to have fired upon Sunil Yadav as a
result of which he fell down.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80075 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of
pending land dispute between the parties as would be evident from
the contents of the FIR itself. From the material that has transpired in
course of investigation, the presence of the informant at the place of
occurrence is doubtful. Though the trial has commenced, only five
witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is in custody since
4.1.2024 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that out of the nine
prosecution witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined. As
per oral instructions received, as a result of one of the co-
accused having absconded, the trial has been stalled. There is
direct allegation against the petitioner of having fired upon
Mahesh Yadav, uncle of the informant, as a result of which he
died.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the direct allegation against the
petitioner of having fired upon Mahesh Yadav together with the
fact that in a case of the year 2021, the petitioner was taken into
custody only in the year 2024 and trial having progressed with
seven out of nine chargesheet witnesses having been examined,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80075 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the
application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.